Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 09:33:13AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Tim Abbott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:54:08PM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
>>>>> +#define __PAGE_ALIGNED_DATA .section ".data.page_aligned", "aw",
>>>>> @progbits
>>>>> +#define __PAGE_ALIGNED_BSS .section ".bss.page_aligned", "aw",
>>>>> @nobits
>>>> It is my understanding that the linker will automatically
>>>> assume nobits for section names starting with .bss and likewise
>>>> progbits for section names starting with .data - so we can leave them out?
>>> I believe that is correct.
>>>
>> ... but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
>>
>> It's better to be fully explicit when macroizing this kind of stuff.
>> This is part of why macroizing it is good: it means we end up with *one*
>> place that determines this stuff, not some magic heuristics in the linker.
>
> Do you know if we can use % in place of @?
> I could see that gas supports both - at least in trunk in cvs.
>
I think it might depend on the architecture(!)... but it would
definitely have to be an issue with testing a bunch of different versions.
What's wrong with @?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.